KAYUMBHAI HUSEN BOHARI, DIED THR. L.RS. ASGARBHAI AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:46539

                                                                            FA 1574/12
                                                 1

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               921 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1574 OF 2012

                 KAYUMBHAI HUSEN BOHARI, DIED THR. L.RS. ASGARBHAI AND ORS
                                           VERSUS
                            THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
                                               ...
                          Advocate for Appellant : Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar
                           AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. D.R. Korde
                                               ...

                                CORAM         : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                Dated         : September 30, 2026

            PER COURT :-

            1.     As the acquisition proceeding is initiated in the year 1982, heard

            finally with the consent of Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, learned counsel for the

            appellants and Mr. D.R. Korde, learned AGP for State. Though served, none

            appears for the acquiring body.

            2.     By this appeal, the appellants/original claimants assail the judgment

            and award dated 4.5.2012 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,

            Amalner in LAR No. 612/1993, by which the learned reference court has

            enhanced the amount, but not granted as claimed by the claimants.

            3.     The land of claimants admeasuring 12 R. from Gat No. 1413 situated

            at village Chopda, Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon was acquired for

            construction of Hatnur Right Canal. Notification under section 4 of the Land

            Acquisition Act came to be published on 7.11.1982. The Special Land

            Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has declared the award under section 11 of the

            Act on 6.3.1986 and granted total compensation of Rs.4,233.60. After

            accepting the amount under protest, the claimants filed reference under

            section 18 of the Act by contending that the SLAO has granted very meager
                                                                FA 1574/12
                                     2

compensation. Before the reference court the claimants relied upon the sale

instance dated 29.7.1982 by which 7 R. land from Gat No.902/1 situated at

village Chopda was sold for Rs.17,000/-. The learned reference court

without considering the above sale instance, has granted rate of Rs. 1,000/-

per R. by relying upon the decision in LAR No. 5/1993. Being aggrieved by

the same, the claimants filed the present appeal.

4.    Mr. Bhokarikar, learned counsel for the appellants/original claimants

submits that for Hatnur project and for the right canal of Hatnur project

lands were acquired by issuing various notifications under section 4 of the

Act and in respect of that various orders were passed by this Court. He

relied upon the order dated 19.4.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Apex court in

Civil Appeal No. 7541/2004 (Murlidhar Dattatraya Tillu (D) by LRs. Vs. State

of Maharashtra) in which notification was published on 7.5.1981 for the

purpose of Upper Top Hatnur Irrigation Project, wherein the Hon’ble Apex

Court has confirmed rate of Rs.38/- per sq. mtr. granted by the reference

court. He submits that coordinate bench of this Court vide order daed

2.4.2026 passed in FA Nos. 115/2012, 1729/2012 and 1152/15 has granted

compensation at the rate of Rs.57/- per sq. mtr. wherein also the date of

notification under section 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1981 for the

very same project and therefore, he submits that in the present matter also

as the notification under section 4 came to be issued in the year 1982, the

claimants are entitled to receive the same rate which was granted by the

coordinate bench of this Court. He submits that sale instances from the

same village were available, however, the learned reference court without

discussing anything about that sale instance, relied upon the order passed

in LAR No. 5/1993 and has granted rate of Rs.1,000/- per R. only which is
                                                                 FA 1574/12
                                     3

very inadequate and meager. Therefore, he prays to allow the present

appeal.

5.    Per contra, Mr. D.R. Korde, learned AGP for the State vehemently

opposed the appeal and submits that State Government has acquired lands

for Hatnur project, which was a big project and by issuing various

notifications lands were acquired phasewise. He submits that as far as the

order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7541/04 (supra)

is concerned, it was in respect of Upper Top Hatnur Irrigation Project and

the present matter is in respect of canal. He submits that as far as

acquisition of the lands for canal is concerned, the same goes from village

to village and therefore, the rate which was granted by the Hon’ble Apex

Court for that project cannot be granted in the present case. He submits

that when the canal goes from village to village, considering the location

and potential of the lands of the concerned area, the rate changes from

village to village. He further submits that as regards the order passed by

the coordinate bench of this court is concerned, it was in respect of

subsequent notification and therefore, it is unsafe to rely upon the order

passed by the coordinate bench of this Court to determine the rate granted

in the present matter. He submits that in the present matter, notification is

of the year 1982 and whatever prevailing market rate in the year 1982

needs to be considered and the learned reference court has rightly

determined the compensation by relying upon the order passed in LAR No.

5/1993. He therefore prays to dismiss the appeal.

6.    Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties, with their

able assistance I have gone through the record and proceedings. After

going through the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is seen that it
                                                                    FA 1574/12
                                        4

was in respect of Upper Top Hatnur Irrigation Project. As regards the order

passed by the coordinate bench of this Court is concerned, though it relates

to the canal, but it was in respect of subsequent notification. Therefore, it is

necessary to consider when section 4 notification was issued in the present

case. Admittedly, section 4 notification was published on 7.11.1982 and 12

R. land of the claimants was acquired for the above project. Before the

reference court the claimants relied upon the sale instance dated 29.7.1982

from the same village i.e. Chopda, by which 7 R. land from Gat No. 902/1

was sold for Rs.17000/-. Admittedly the sale instance is from the same

village and that was prior to section 4 notification. Though it was not

brought on the record before the reference court that Gat No. 902/1 and

the acquired land are far away, but the fact remains that the sale instance

dated 29.7.1982 and the present land are from the same village i.e. Chopda

and therefore, the sale instance dated 29.7.1982 can be considered as

comparable sale instance by which 7 R. land was sold for Rs.17,000/-.

Therefore, as per that sale instance rate comes to Rs.24/- per sq. mtr. and

therefore, this court is of the view that claimants are entitled to receive the

rate of Rs.24/- per sq. mtr. for the acquired land i.e. Rs.2400/- per R.

Hence, the order.

                                   ORDER

(I)     The appeal is partly allowed.

(II)    The appellants/claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the

rate of Rs.2400/- per R. for their acquired land.

(III)   The appellants/claimants shall be entitled to all consequential

statutory benefits including interest under sections 28 and 34 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 on the enhanced compensation in view of the
                                                                   FA 1574/12
                                       5

judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs.

Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457 .

(IV)   The appellants/claimants shall pay the deficit court fee, if any, on the

enhanced amount.

(V)    If there is delay in filing the appeal, the appellants/claimants are not

entitled to receive interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period.

(V)    The impugned judgment and award of the reference court is modified

accordingly.

(VI)   Rest of the impugned award shall remain unaltered.

(VII) Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of.



                                           ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/